On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 2:03 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 3:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > procArray->replication_slot_catalog_xmin) but then don't adjust it for > > 'max_slot_xid_age'. I could be missing something in this but it is > > better to keep discussing this and try to move with another parameter > > 'inactive_replication_slot_timeout' which according to me can be kept > > at slot level instead of a GUC but OTOH we need to see the arguments > > on both side and then decide which makes more sense. > > Hm. Are you suggesting inactive_timeout to be a slot level parameter > similar to 'failover' property added recently by > c393308b69d229b664391ac583b9e07418d411b6 and > 73292404370c9900a96e2bebdc7144f7010339cf? With this approach, one can > set inactive_timeout while creating the slot either via > pg_create_physical_replication_slot() or > pg_create_logical_replication_slot() or CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT or > ALTER_REPLICATION_SLOT command, and postgres tracks the > last_inactive_at for every slot based on which the slot gets > invalidated. If this understanding is right, I can go ahead and work > towards it. >
Yeah, I have something like that in mind. You can prepare the patch but it would be good if others involved in this thread can also share their opinion. > Alternatively, we can go the route of making GUC a list of key-value > pairs of {slot_name, inactive_timeout}, but this kind of GUC for > setting slot level parameters is going to be the first of its kind, so > I'd prefer the above approach. > I would prefer a slot-level parameter in this case rather than a GUC. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.